Tuesday, March 27, 2018

New research does just that, taking advantage of the existence of a multicultural American environment: Hawaii. A group of young white adults demonstrated a decline in racist beliefs and enhanced cognitive flexibility after living in the state for nine months.
These promising findings, reported by a team led by psychologist Kristin Pauker of the University of Hawaii–Manoa, are published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

The authors, including the Stanford economist Raj Chetty and two census researchers, Maggie R. Jones and Sonya R. Porter, tried to identify neighborhoods where poor black boys do well, and as well as whites.

“The problem,” Mr. Chetty said, “is that there are essentially no such neighborhoods in America.”

The few neighborhoods that met this standard were in areas that showed less discrimination in surveys and tests of racial bias. They mostly had low poverty rates. And, intriguingly, these pockets — including parts of the Maryland suburbs of Washington, and corners of Queens and the Bronx — were the places where many lower-income black children had fathers at home. Poor black boys did well in such places, whether their own fathers were present or not.

I italicized the lines that suggest something many of us believe: If you want to end racism, you have to end poverty.

Monday, March 26, 2018

According to our research, at least 59% of the 185 public mass shootings that took place in the United States from 1900 through 2017 were carried out by people who had either been diagnosed with a mental disorder or demonstrated signs of serious mental illness prior to the attack. (We define a mass public shooting as any incident in which four or more victims are killed with a gun within a 24-hour period at a public location in the absence of military conflict, collective violence or other criminal activity, such as robberies, drug deals or gang turf wars.)

...Both rates are considerably higher than those found in the general population — more than three times higher than the rate of mental illness found among American adults, and about 15 times higher than the rate of serious mental illness found among American adults.

Nearly 80 percent of the perpetrators in these 62 cases obtained their weapons legally. Acute paranoia, delusions, and depression were rampant among them, with at least 36 of the killers committing suicide on or near the scene. Seven others died in police shootouts they had little hope of surviving (a.k.a. “suicide by cop”). And according to additional research we completed recently, at least 38 of them displayed signs of possible mental health problems prior to the killings. (That data is now included in the interactive guide linked above.)

In an analysis of 235 mass killings, many of which were carried out with firearms, 22 percent of the perpetrators could be considered mentally ill.

I believe, as most Americans do, that improving gun regulations will reduce the number of mass shootings. Part of the solution is making it easier for people with mental illness to get help and harder for them to get guns.

A week after Florida’s legislation was signed, a Broward County judge in Florida issued the state’s first order to temporarily remove firearms from a man who allegedly believed he was being electrocuted by condominium electrical breakers and targeted by the FBI and a shape-shifting neighbor, according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel. Four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition were removed, and the man was taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.

I would love anyone who issued a challenge to Richard Spencer to fight. But why anyone would make a hero of an anonymous coward in a mask who hit someone from behind and ran away, I will never understand. Hines' idea of heroism is clearly not mine. I prefer people like Malcolm X, who faced his opponents and only used violence when they did.

"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." —Malcolm X

Shetterly responds by suggesting he should alt-fistbump me, using the phrase I just defined to mean punching someone in the face. You claim this is not a threat of violence. (Even though you think it *was* a threat when I posted my Tweet.)

Do I seriously think Shetterly would try to punch me in the face? Probably not. His reply to me was more empty bluster than anything.

I now know another thing Hines does not grasp. "Bluster" calls for more than asking if I should greet him in the way he endorses.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Before conventions began banning people, the fundamental privilege of attending science conventions wasn't discussed because, by capitalist standards, the privilege was fair: anyone who had money could go, and anyone who didn't, well, capitalist fairness is never about people who don't have money.

But now that conventions have begun banning people, it's time to acknowledge the second privilege. Though the genre has grown enormously, it's still a small community at the top. If you hope to become a professional, it can be enormously helpful to attend WorldCon, the World Fantasy Convention, and literary conventions like ReaderCon, WisCon, and Fourth Street Fantasy. Once your career has begun, you need to be able to attend the Nebula Awards too. Obviously, only the very privileged can go to most of those conventions regularly, but anyone who wants to make a career in this field should, every year, pick one from from Column A (WorldCon, World Fantasy, Nebula Awards), one from Column B (ReaderCon, WisCon, Fourth Street Fantasy), and one from Column C (local convention, regional convention, major commercial convention like DragonCon).

Being banned from any convention is an enormous blow to a writer's ability to be a writer, and especially to a new writer's ability to last in the field. It keeps you from meeting fellow professionals and getting useful tips, and it keeps you from making new fans.

But Hines may be mistaken in some of the things he's claiming about Del Arroz. Hines seems like a fundamentally nice guy, but he is an identitarian whose ideological filters give him trouble with metaphor. He said at Shetterly Banned by 4th Street Fantasy Convention: "I blocked WS after he “joked” about punching me in the face." I wish he had quoted me, because I don't remember the incident, but so far as I know, Hines never objects to the violent metaphors his community endorses, like Tempest Bradford's "cut a bitch".

More significantly, in the same comment, Hines said, " I’ve never really understood the whole, “He’s an asshole online, but he’s a nice guy in real life” dichotomy."

I’m not saying Del Arroz is pure evil, or incapable of niceness. I know some people have had nothing but great experiences with him. One person I have a fair amount of respect for talked about how Del Arroz picked him up when he was stranded in the rain, and took him the rest of the way to a convention. That’s a cool thing to do. I’ve seen Del Arroz shut down one of his followers who suggested doxxing SJWs. Sure, not doxxing is a bare minimum of decency, but good on him for taking that stand.

Ah, well. It may be that fandom is simply so large that it will have to splinter. The people in charge of fandom for the last thirty years tend to be identitarian neoliberals, just like the people who have been in charge of the US for the last thirty years. Having fandom break on those lines may be inevitable.

Oh, lest anyone think I'm remembering a golden age that didn't exist, I remember very well being part of the new guard who was frustrated with the old. Fandom's "one big happy family" always fought constantly. But we understood the dichotomy that Jim Hines does not. Was anyone ever banned from a convention for things said in an apa or a fanzine?

If things do not change, a statement like this will be inconceivable in fandom:

"Poul [Anderson] knows that I am a “fuzzy-minded pinko” and I know that he is a “narrow-minded hardhat” (not that either of us would ever use such terms), but we love each other anyway, and our relations with each other in these last couple of years have not suffered at all." —Isaac Asimov

ETA:

1. How much going to conventions helps writers is impossible to measure. If you can't afford to go to conventions, don't agonize--keep writing. And if you can afford to go, don't focus on promoting yourself--you'll just alienate people.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

Popper's theory is probably as old as the idea of tolerance. Many thinkers disagree with him, noting that intolerance is intolerance, even if it's intolerance of intolerance. I like Thomas Jefferson's observation in his first inaugural speech:

If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

People who say we must be intolerant of intolerance are failing to ask what feeds it. They think intolerance is only a belief that grows by being told, so if you stop the telling, you'll stop the intolerance.

But intolerance is a reaction to the world around us. When people feel they must compete, they tend to become intolerant—fascism needed the Great Depression to thrive. When people's needs are met, they tend to be tolerant. There's no reason to be intolerant of intolerance when times are good—the intolerant are powerless then. And in hard times, it's better to show the virtues of tolerance while working to solve the problem that's manifesting as intolerance.

Monday, March 19, 2018

"All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." -Benjamin Franklin

Seventeen percent of respondents said interracial marriage was “morally wrong” while 83 percent said it was “morally acceptable.” There was a bit of a divide along party lines on the subject, with 28 percent of Republicans and just 12 percent of Democrats replying that interracial marriage was morally wrong.

There wasn’t much of a difference among respondents by race, however, according to YouGov. Seventeen percent of white respondents felt interracial marriage was morally wrong, compared with 18 percent of black respondents and 15 percent of Hispanic respondents.

Blacks' approval of black-white marriage (96%) is now nearly universal, while whites' approval is 12 percentage points lower, at 84%. Blacks' approval has consistently been higher than whites' over the decades, although attitudes among both racial groups have generally moved in a parallel manner since 1968 -- when Gallup first was able to report reliable estimates of each group's opinion. The gap between black approval and white approval in recent years has been smaller than it was prior to 1997.

I can offer two theories for why people might be becoming more racist:

I'm amused and pleased none of my doubters have taken up my offer to let them see all the emails between the Fourth Street Board and me. But after watching them over a couple of days, I suspect they're simply not interested in facts that would force them to rethink their beliefs. All humans are susceptible to this, especially when they believe in things like neoliberalism or identitarianism that have nothing to do with facts.

2

Though estee confirmed that Coffeeandink had been public about her legal identity, Andy H insisted,

...at the time of Racefail I had been a regular reader of coffeeandink’s blog for at least five years. For most of that period I did not know her real name. I don’t recall how I eventually learned it, but I understood it to not be something that was generally linked to the blog and with which it was appropriate to be discreet. I do not believe it to be true that she had ever used her first name as her livejournal username; she was coffeeandink for the entire time I followed her, but commenters occasionally called her affectionately by another pseudonym which I think may have been her username before.

I believe Andy H is being completely honest about her memory. But memory is so unreliable that good detectives know eye witnesses sometimes give false testimony without realizing it.

Fortunately, in this case, we have Coffeeandink's own words to show that Andy H misremembers. On March 7, almost a full week after I am supposed to have outed Coffeeandink, she made a public post addressed to Kathryn Cramer that included this:

Please also explain how I was hiding my identity from you or the Nielsen Haydens in a LiveJournal pnh friended a few years ago, with a user profile that lists my very identifiable first name, in a post that is signed with my very identifiable first name.

3

As the conversation peters out, the neoliberals have been promoting two thoroughly debunked theories. I provided two relevant linkfests:

But confirmation bias always rules. We trust things that confirm our beliefs. Cultists carry this to such an extreme that it might be called denial bias--they will reject disquieting information even when they don't have comforting information to fill the void.

1. This offer isn't open to everyone who's curious because life's short. It's only open to people who have said in public that I must have left something important out.

2. Some of the material in those conversations, like Alex Haist's gmail account, is private and must stay private. The only things I am giving permission to share are things that the Board said officially (which, I suppose, would include the comments Alex Haist incompetently or maliciously included at the end of an official letter) and anything that I said.

And socialists whose beliefs about identity come from liberals like Derrick Bell and Kimberle Crenshaw effectively support all three when they focus on the battles that are being won instead of the one that's being lost.

Friday, March 16, 2018

I’m also not inclined to believe he has engaged in full disclosure about his interactions with Fourth Street over this. Not suggesting anything is faked; just that I wouldnt be surprised if there’s more, stuff that he’s decided is “not relevant,” but which Fourth Street might consider very relevant.

Hampus Eckerman says,

we can be fairly sure that he will not mention everything relevant.

JJ says,

I’m quite sure that WS has, as usual, presented only the information which supports his narrative.

This amuses me. In order to show I wasn't omitting anything relevant, I was afraid I'd included too much.

For the record, I omitted the emails about planning the seminar before I was kicked off it, I omitted the emails we shared once it was settled that I'd be doing a panel at the convention, and out of consideration for Alex Haist, I omitted some insulting notes that she incompetently or maliciously left on the copy of the letter she sent me to answer my four questions. If there's anything I left out that seems pertinent, I invite anyone from the Board to share it with the assurance that I have no intention of suing anyone.

It also saddens but doesn't surprise me to see people insisting "But there must be something more!" It is another way cults try to discredit outsiders: when they have nothing, they suggest that the absence of evidence must be significant.

Meredith says,

I’ve never got the impression that Shetterly is dangerous – apart from a willingness to out people, which is a different sort of dangerous –

My "willingness to out people" consists of ironically saying I was outing one person, Micole Coffeeandink. If there were more, Meredith's community would have screen caps to prove it.

I remember vaguely how he went around here saying that he took some sketchy exam online that proved he wasn’t racist while vaguely implying that anyone who didn’t want to take the same exam online was.

The idea that Project Implicit's Race IAT is "sketchy" is also amusing. The test actually suggested I am racist--like a large minority of white people, I show an implicit preference for black folks. I wish I was among the people who show no preference, but sometimes you have to accept that you are what you are.

estee says,

about the “outing” business—that woman was not closeted in the first place, no matter what she said about it afterwards. Back in 2009 when Racefail was in full swing, I used to read the various blogs every few days, when I could snatch a little free time. On one occasion I had trouble finding hers because I couldn’t remember the name of the blog and hadn’t bookmarked it; but I did remember the personal name used by the blogger, because it was unusual. So I Googled it, and among the first things that came up were her Amazon wish list, and references to her published fiction, all with her full legal name. I had no idea who she was and certainly wasn’t trying to find anything except the blog, but there all the information was, for anyone to see. So when she started claiming that she had been outed by the people she disliked, my first reaction was bewilderment, and my second reaction was outrage at such a bold-faced lie. (And my third reaction was disgust at how many people fell for the lie.)

I strongly disagree with many of Will’s opinions, but for several years—specifically, between 2009 and 2014—I read his blog regularly because he seemed to be the only person willing to tell the truth about something important: namely, that very ugly things were being said and done in the name of social justice in SFF. Eventually, of course, the nastiness became so extreme that other people pointed it out as well, and Laura Mixon won a Hugo for going public with it. But for quite a while there, Will was the solitary, bratty kid complaining about the Emperor’s new clothes while everyone else politely pretended that all was well.

estee, thank you.

Oneiros says,

It seems to me that WS could’ve just taken his lumps and gone on with his life. His decision to go public about all this is just trying to create drama over a non-situation. He’s done with them; they’re done with him. Nothing of substance has changed as far as I can tell.

The discussion at File770 shows what has changed: so far as I know, no one is implying that I'm physically dangerous to be around, which would have been the first assumption if I'd stayed silent.

Litch says,

Really, there was no threat of lawsuit in his email, none. He both explicitly denies an interest and provides a reasonable explanation for why he brought it up

Why go out of your way to piss him off? Ive seen some people call him a drama queen but really, this crown was thrust upon him.

Litch, thank you.

John A Arkansawyer says,

One advantage of taking this to court–which I’m increasingly hoping he’ll do as I watch you go all white cell group mind over the intruder, something I doubt you realize looks as ugly to outsiders at it does–would be an outside check on whether or not this is bullshit.

I think it sounds like bullshit. Once you wipe away the dust, what happened was that Shetterly and Brust disagree politically with identity populism. They take a traditional left-wing approach to ending oppression. That is not an acceptable political position to say out loud in America, so they got booted under pretexts.

(That’s clearly not what happened with whatsisname, who made publicly explicit his intentions to commit clear and unequivocal harassment.)

So I’d like to see a judge–or anybody who isn’t the buddy or antagonist of someone involved, though a judge can really rub your nose in it–say whether or not what what Shetterly is accused of is actually harassment. A word the board avoids using, though folks here have felt free to do so without knowing what the board knows.

That last is a rather delicious irony which only occurred to me as I typed it.

and

One of my assumptions is that this is not about harassment. I assume that because the board was explicit in what they said.

The bouncing from a panel–but not from the convention, as I assume it would be if he were harassing people–was about “mode of discourse and your pattern of pursuing conversation past the point of when the other party wants to disengage”. I read that as being about panel behavior, though I could be wrong.

The banning is explicitly said to be because they are worried about a lawsuit.

Neither is characterized as harassment by the board, which presumably knows more about the situation than anyone in this discussion. Yet two commenters had used the word harassment in varyingly indirect references three times, all after the comment where I quoted the board’s explicit statements.

I don’t like slippery slope arguments, because all of life is a slippery slope. Being on the the slippery slope of banning people for harassment is a righteous place to be. It’s made righteous by not by leaving the slope–since you can’t leave it–but by resisting going down it. So perhaps people could resist sliding from right to wrong on this one.

and

@Meredith: Since I’m here, I’ll say it again: The board did not make any claim of harassment whatsoever. Harassment entered the discussion here, when people did exactly what Shetterly predicted they’d do: Decide something happened that was super terrible and double secret. And so entered harassment, from thin air.

He was bounced from a panel for…harassment? Why wouldn’t he be bounced from the con for that? Isn’t it much likelier such a limited sanction involved a more limited reading of the board’s words: “your mode of discourse and your pattern of pursuing conversation past the point of when the other party wants to disengage”?

Then more reports of following people after racefail (And some later smaller incidents, if I recall correctly) — including into private correspondence. That started to weird me out.

and

it seemed exceedingly frequent for him to attack other leftists

and

Following people around and repeatedly trying to get them to continue an argument thay have said they don’t want to have, and who have asked you to leave – IS HARASSMENT.mis

I suspect the mention of "private correspondence" refers to an attempt to end a disagreement by email. In many communities, trying to resolve things privately is considered a virtue, not a sin. Whenever I was told someone did not want to discuss this, I dropped the subject. If I am misremembering anything, I invite people to share my emails. One of the codes I try to live by is Bob Dylan's "to live outside the law, you must be honest."

As for disagreeing with people on public forums, I completely own that. I do not tolerate lies or misrepresentations, and I do not plan to change my ways. Anyone is free to respond at a public site, much though people promoting agendas may wish it were not so.

I'm not sure who the "other leftists" are. I suspect they're neoliberal identitarians, who I criticize because they are not leftists. I just today came across Adolph Reed's observation from 1996:

"...identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle-class reform in favoring form over substance."

The flamewar called Racefail was entirely about form over substance.

Lydy Nickerson says,

The woman in question did not want her LJ handle linked explicitly to her real life handle.

If that were true, why did she use her extremely uncommon first name as her LJ handle? At the time, if you googled just her first name, she was among the very first hits thanks to her habit of using her full legal name in public posts on her LJ.

ETA: There has been more discussion at File 770. I say that for thoroughness—none of it seems worth adding to this post.

More people than anyone knows have been attacked by fandom's New McCarthyites. After posting Positively Fourth Street, or On being banned for ... vague reasons about nearly indescribable things?, I was told more stories. I should have expected that--people whose fears keep them silent will tell things in confidence to those who speak out. Once, in an online argument, I was foolish enough to say I was supported by lurkers in email. The people on the other side assumed I was lying and mocked me. I only pitied them—if you've never been supported by lurkers, you're the bully in the room.

I want to assure people that I'm not suicidal. I like to think it's because I'm a hard ass, but I know it has more to do with having people in my life who love me.

Yet people kill themselves even though they're surrounded by love. Being driven out of a community causes enormous psychological damage. Humans are herd animals. For some, death is more comforting than being cast out.

If you're one of those people, reach out to a friend or a suicide hotline now. That feeling is powerful, but it is a lie.

People who have not experienced mobbing often think it would not harm them. They are like Trump claiming he would have run into danger. Braggarts are usually people who have not been tested.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

I despise few things more than whisper campaigns, so I'm going public with something that's gone on for over a year in science fiction fandom, a community that may gossip more than any other because all fans love a wild tale.

Even if it could be proved that fans gossip less than other people, the folk wisdom about gossip appears to be true: The spread of true and false news online @ Science concludes "It took the truth about six times as long as falsehood to reach 1500 people" and "Falsehood also reached far more people than the truth."

Hey.. I'm running into a bit of a snag putting together 2017's friday morning seminar. I had an initial plan that's fallen apart so I've been brain storming alternate plans.

What do you two think of putting something together around the topic of writing for different mediums: read, watched, listened to, small screen, large screen, etc?

Is this something I could arm twist either or both of you into leading a seminar about? :)

We said we'd think about it and suggested other writers who could be helpful. On the 16th, Brad wrote,

Are the two of you solid enough to be considered confirmed? If not, what sort of incentives do I need find to help. :)

We said we'd decided against it, but would be glad to help out in other ways. Brad wrote on the 22nd:

Can I change your mind with a hotel room for the weekend? Any other bribery technique that'd work on you? :)

On February 4, he wrote again, saying,

Any change of heart, I'm ready to beg. You two would be great for this and I really think it's important to have at least a person or two who knows the 4th street vibe to be involved.

I liked Brad and felt bad that 4th Street was having trouble getting teachers for the Friday seminar, so I wrote back,

Well, if you're twisting, I'll agree.

During March, Brad and I and the other seminar leaders made our plans. Everything seemed to be set.

But on April 25, Brad sent a note saying someone else was lined up to do the convention. I didn't think anything of it until I learned that was't quite the case. So I sent this email to Brad and the convention's founder, Steven Brust, who, as an ex officio Board member, was supposed to be kept informed of Board decisions:

This has been nagging at me, so I thought I'd seek some clarification.

Brad seemed to be pushing hard to line me up for the writing seminar. I had mixed feelings about whether I was a good choice now that I'm doing less in the field, but I was flattered and agreed when he persisted.

Then I got bumped with this short and uninformative note:

"Thank you for being so accommodating around the seminar. I appreciate it. As it turns out, we've found someone else who can fit the bill, and we're going to go with them instead. I am extremely grateful for your willingness to step up for us."

So I went to the 4th Street site and learned that Doris Egan had been lined up and "panelists are still being recruited."

I gather I've been blackballed. My inclination is to simply avoid 4th Street, but Emma says I may be misreading the signs. If it wasn't for that business about 4th Street still recruiting panelists for the seminar, I would happily assume Brad had been writing fast and didn't realize a short note following the earlier, longer attempts to convince me might look like a brush-off.

So I'll make this blunt. Have people said my presence would trigger them, and therefore I shouldn't come to 4th Street? Or am I reading too much into being told I wasn't needed while you recruit someone else?

The Board—Alex Haist, Scott Lynch, Brad Roberts, and Janet Grouchy—had failed to keep Steve informed. So he contacted Janet and learned a little of what had happened. Around this time, Janet quit the Board in disgust with their decision to ignore the "4th Street Guidelines for Handling Sensitive Issues" which stated:

The Board will investigate the complaint via conversation with involved parties with as much documentation as can be obtained.

When Steve wrote me back, he included this bit which will be relevant later:

...I've prepared a rant inspired by the whole thing, titled, "Fourth Street is not a safe space, and it shouldn't be." I've asked Scott to make it the first panel, but he probably won't, in which case I'll be delivering it as my opening comment.

I am unreasonably steamed about this.

Brad sent me this:

I talked you to into being a seminar leader without discussing it with the Board. Once it went up on the website, our Safety Coordinator, Alex Haist, raised some concerns. After looking into those and much discussion, the Board decided it would be better for the convention to go with someone else. If you'd like to more detail, you are welcome to discuss it directly with her. Her email is ...

You are not at all barred from the convention, and I'd be happy to see you there. I apologize for the rocky communication.

I replied:

Just for the record, what the fuck am I supposed to have done that was ever a threat to anyone beside disagreeing with people online?

It is currently extremely unlikely that I will be there.

But I do sympathize with you for being stuck in the middle.

I then wrote the Board:

I don't know why I've been blackballed. I know that I have a long history of disagreeing online with the genre's more vocal neoliberal identitarians, but so far as I know, my only offline manifestation of that has been to ignore a few people when I see them at conventions. If I am accused of behaving like [Person Y] or doing anything that might make anyone think I am not be safe to be around, I would greatly appreciate hearing about it. If I've forgotten something I did, I'll own it. If it's just more of the wild gossiping that bedevils this community, I'd like to refute it. The only thing I do not appreciate is precisely what's happened here, being judged and condemned in absentia for a crime I've not been charged with.

Hmm. Perhaps you should do a panel on Kafka.

Obviously, I do not plan to come to 4th Street.

Alex Haist emailed me:

I want to apologize for how we have handled talking to you about this; we should have talked to you sooner, and Janet shouldn't have talked with Steve so that he could explain to you what was going on. This was no way to treat you after you agreed to do the seminar, especially with Brad personally inviting you. I'm sorry. You didn't deserve that.

I'm still not sure what you've heard, so I'll lay out what happened. When the seminar page went up, we received many complaints, and I brought these Safety concerns to the Board. Your long history online and on certain panels at 4th St. are the issues. Of particular concern is your pattern of refusing to drop arguments despite direct requests and pursuing people on various social media platforms when they do not want to engage with you.

Your reputation and mode of discourse are such that the Board decided that having you represent the convention as seminar leader wouldn't be in line with the kind of inclusive culture we want to promote at 4th St. Fantasy. If you were to behave in person the way you have online--by refusing to back off when the other party was done conversing--you would not be welcome at 4th St. at all. At the moment, we have only instituted formal safety procedures as of last year, and we haven't received any formal complaints that would lead to you being banned from the convention.

Please let me know if I can clear up anything else.

I replied:

Let's see.

1. You agree that I do not behave in person the way I'm said to behave online.

2. You say I don't back down from arguments online. That's true. But as for "pursuing people", when someone is telling lies about my friends or me in public forums, I refute them. I do realize that some people take umbrage at having their stories challenged. However, as I note in my blog today, if I was guilty of abusing people online, there would be screen caps to prove it--your community has been religiously screen capping the things that upset them at least since they doxxed and terrorized Zathlazip nearly a decade ago. See http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2017/04/a-warrior-in-whisper-wars.html

3. There was a panel that Beth Meacham moderated which I agree went abominably. However, did I call anyone names? Did I threaten anyone? Did I do anything more than disagree vigorously? Did I not submit when Beth insisted?

Ah, well. The questions here are rhetorical. No need to reply.

And I sent this note, which will also be relevant later:

I confess, what's most disappointing is that if one of you had had the common decency to come to me and say there were concerns, I would've happily stepped down for the good of the convention. I am aware that I have become a convenient demon, and I don't like seeing others suffer for that. I would've made some face-saving apology about how the workshop wouldn't fit my schedule, but I was looking forward to seeing people at the convention itself.

Instead, you have placed me in [Person Y]'s company as someone who must be rejected for safety's sake.

Someone has suggested this decision to imply I'm unsafe in public might be actionable. I don't know. I just think it is just very disappointing.

Emma sent this to the Board:

I believe it's actionable, though I wouldn't do that to Fourth Street. Here's the story that will now circulate in fannish gossip circles (because now that this has happened, word will spread; I've been in fandom for long enough to know it): Will Shetterly was kicked off programming on a local convention he helped found, because of concerns raised by the Safety Coordinator. Once that gets around, Will will be placed firmly in [Person Y] territory, and any convention considering inviting him to participate will reconsider. No one will know that your decision was made on the basis of hearsay and Things Believed on the Internet, and reinforced by his once having argued on a panel.

By doing this, in this way, you've damaged Will's personal and professional reputation and hurt his career. If Fourth Street has no respect for writers' reputations and careers, I'd say it's not the place for a working writer to have a public discussion of writing and art, two subjects that are deeply personal and intimately connected to the creator's principles and beliefs.

I also want to ask, parenthetically, if Fourth Street still welcomes discussion, disagreement, and even argument. It was founded on the idea that that was what participants wanted to do--to address passionately and with complete commitment the things that were most important to them about their craft and the ideas that drive it. If that's no longer the case, I'll accept that Fourth Street is no longer the convention I loved, and I will spare you my disruptive presence.

I'm particularly disappointed because, as usual, Scott has produced a fascinating first cut of programming. I would have loved to be part of it, even if only conversing from the audience. Brad, I'm very sorry you were caught in the middle of this; you've observed Will's behavior at Fourth Street and elsewhere, and had no idea anyone would object to his participating in programming. You only did what you'd committed to do--recruit workshop participants--and I don't believe responsibility for this falls on your shoulders.

(I'd also like to point out that Ben, Holly, and Will had already started discussions about how to organize the workshop. In addition to all the rest, you've wasted a bit of Ben and Holly's time, which can't be in endless supply.)

I emailed the Board:

My take is that sometimes communication breaks down and things go to hell, and the only way to fix them is to get everyone back in the loop, at least in the broadest strokes. So you may all make your decisions with the necessary information about my intentions, here they are:

1. I do not want 4th Street to suffer in any way.

2. While I'm disappointed that no one came to me early on, life's too short for grudges, so I'm not holding this against anyone.

3. So long as nothing new goes public, I'm content to stay quiet about this for a few days.

4. Given the fact that I was officially involved with the workshop and then was dropped from the web page, I need to make a public statement. I haven't got a clue what it should be. I'm in no hurry to do it, and I will not lie about the reason, but I do not need to explain what happened either. I just need to come up with something true that I can be content with.

5. I cannot speak for Emma, but I would like her to be there for the 30th anniversary of War for the Oaks.

So don't anyone feel they need to rush things on my account. I'll see where things are by Monday, and then I'll draft something that I'll run by Steve and Emma for approval before I post it.

Hoping you all have a good weekend--

On the 28th, I wrote Alex Haist:

I'm meeting with friends Sunday night to decide what to do Monday. I need some clarification and hope you can provide it soon.

As a workshop leader, my job would've been to teach students a little about what I've learned from 30 years as a professional writer and editor. What could I possibly do during a one-day seminar that would upset anyone? A workshop is not comparable to a panel where one might debate the validity of "cultural appropriation" and whether white people should write about black people. There's nothing to argue about when talking about the professional life—either a pro has learned something useful or hasn't.

However, given fandom, one thing is clear: Men who are perceived as sexual predators are being banned or moved from positions of authority. I have been moved from a position of authority. So far as the general public is concerned, I've been banned entirely since my name is not on the list of attendees and no reason has been offered for removing me from the workshop. So my three questions:

1. Is there is any suggestion that I have done anything out of line sexually? I need to know because it is the vilest slander.

2. If there is not, what are people afraid I would do as an instructor? Teach socialism?

3. What do you expect the public to assume from your decision to remove me from the workshop? Given fandom's history with people like [Person Y] and [Person W], I think the answer is clear.

The notion people won't talk about this is silly.You have noted that people saw the announcement and commented on it. I hope you will acknowledge that in your community, gossip is currency. Obviously, you talk about this with your friends, who talk about it with their friends, etc. I understand the board member who quit recently [Will's note: Not Janet—a Board member who quit shortly before her], who I have no memory of ever interacting with, was on a vendetta against me—I have no doubt she is spreading this story as far as she possibly can.

Answers to these questions will be very useful for deciding how to proceed tomorrow night.

Then I sent,

I apologize for having a fourth question, but it is extremely important.

4. Did any of the writing students that Emma and I have taught over the last 30 years suggest I had ever done anything wrong or was in any way incompetent?

This question is essential because the second reason people would assume I had been dropped was that I'm a bad teacher. Yet in the three decades that Emma and I have been teaching, we've gotten a lot of praise and no criticism that I remember. We don't always teach together, but obviously, we're sufficiently linked that an attack on my reputation affects hers.

I realize your community has been weaponizing poverty, that is, trying to get people fired for disagreeing with your ideology, since the doxxing and terrorizing of Zathlazip. I don't know if it's because so many of you are economically privileged that it doesn't occur to you that this matters or if it's because you believe heretics must be discredited and impoverished.

Whatever the reason, I can't see a third option. Either you dismissed me for sexual malfeasance or professional incompetence. If the latter, there must be students who think I'm a bad or abusive teacher. Are there? Did you verify that they had studied with me?

Hoping I don't think of a fifth question while you enjoy this nice weekend,

Alex replied:

The first e-mail we sent was our attempt to make a neutral statement, suitable but not intended for public consumption. It was undeniably shabby of us to invite you, and then, by drawing out the notification and website updating processes, to needlessly complicate matters and alarm you.

We are not planning to make any kind of a public statement beyond changing the website and sending attendees the final seminar line up. This has been handled as privately as possible, and there's no need to draw attention to it.

If anyone presses for a reason beyond the lineup changing, then we will tell them that Brad asked you to do the con a favor by being a seminar panelist, and we ended up not needing the favor. That is all we intend to say publicly. The goal here is to avoid, not start, drama, for either the convention or for you.

To answer your questions:

1) No. Sexual misconduct has not been remotely brought up.
2) The active 4th Street Board concluded that your mode of discourse and your pattern of pursuing conversation past the point of when the other party wants to disengage aren't in line with the inclusive culture 4th Street would like to promote. As such, you're welcome as an attendee but not a representative of the convention.
3) You're welcome to post the reasons I shared with you in a previous email if you think it's better to offer the community that much detail. It's your reputation and your call.
4) Your competence wasn't a factor in our decision.

Thanks for the heads up about your thought process.

On April 30, I sent this to the Board:

I'm back from a very pleasant evening of dinner, drinks, and music from Lojo, and I had a couple of ciders, so if there are even more typos than usual, my bad.

I just want to reassure everyone that Emma and I have less than zero intention of suing anyone. When we talk about what you've done being actionable, we're trying to point out how very badly you've misjudged the consequences—I assume you simply thought that when some people complained to the safety person, you could drop me and all would be fine.

So far as I'm concerned, as one of the founders of Fourth Street, I want it succeed; I consider everyone but Alex a friend and I credit her decisions to ignorance rather than malice; and even if for some odd reason I felt vindictive, one of my bits of quirky Christianity is “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother."

So in the interest of making peace, I went to the convention and took part in a panel. For me personally, it was a surprisingly pleasant Fourth Street.

But it was an awful convention for Steve Brust.

2. A space safe for ideas becomes a space safe from them

At Opening Ceremonies, Steve tried to share "Fourth Street is not a safe space, and it shouldn't be." Alex Haist shut him down before he could finish, which led to an enormous number of misunderstandings. I thought Steve was treated abominably—at the very least, he should have been allowed to finish speaking and then clarify his intent. Sometime during the convention, I realized I was done with Fourth Street and wouldn't be returning.

In the days after the convention, Steve's aborted speech was discussed online and off. If you want to know more, start with his accounts:

After deciding I was done with Fourth Street, I rarely thought about it. When I did, I remembered it like Minneapolis's Uptown neighborhood, a place that was fun that has been gentrified. It never occurred to me that Fourth Street was not done with me, but the convention is like a lover I ghosted—she felt obliged to tell me the relationship is over. On March 8, I woke to find this email:

Dear Will:

On April 27, 2017, as part of an email conversation regarding your removal from a programming item at the 2017 4th Street Fantasy Convention, you wrote “Someone has suggested this decision to imply I’m unsafe in public might be actionable.”

We cannot disregard this implied threat of legal action, particularly combined with your lengthy and detailed public criticism of the convention on multiple platforms. Despite your reassurance in correspondence dated April 30, 2017 that “I just want to reassure everyone that Emma and I have less than zero intention of suing anyone”, the Board of Directors has decided that we are unwilling to open ourselves to liability through further association with you.

We are therefore banning you from Fourth Street Fantasy.

We would like to resolve this privately. These are the practical steps we have taken:

• As stated above, you are banned from Fourth Street Fantasy. You will not be allowed to register for the convention or attend convention events. Please do not come to the Doubletree Hotel during the weekend of the convention.

Thank you for your service as a founder, programming participant, and long-time attendee. We wish you well in your further writing career.

Sincerely Yours,

The Fourth Street Fantasy Board of Directors

Brad Roberts
Scott Lynch
Alex Haist
Arkady Martine
Max Gladstone

To show I copied it accurately, here's the original:

(click to enlarge)

Amusingly, the letterhead is from a piece of art that uses Steven Brust in his beloved cavalier's hat as a model for an archaically dressed adventurer who leans against a lamp post. If you're attentive to symbolism, it suggests that here is light in darkness, but there may still be danger. It was a good symbol for the original Fourth Street, where competing ideas were discussed, not silenced. The current letterhead is a good symbol for the new Fourth Street—its founder has been erased.

Almost as soon as I got that, I replied,

Man, y'all are just doubling down, aren't you? Are you trying to get me to take action against you?

I know it sounds lame after you do this, but since you treated Steve so badly, I had decided not to return.

By the by, you do know I've never done anything to make anyone feel unsafe at any convention? Well, other than disagreeing with neoliberalism and identitarianism while supporting socialism, a notion that always troubles the privileged?

Will

I then wrote Brad and Scott:

I just wanted to say I'm very disappointed by the way the two of you are handling this. I don't know the others on the board, so there's no reason I should expect them to behave like friends, or even like adults. But I had thought of you both as friends in the broad sense of the word, and, Scott, in your case, a closer sense that came from doing little favors like helping you move into your apartment. I began to suspect I was wrong when you kicked me off the panel earlier. The latest letter from the board confirms what I should've accepted earlier.

If there is some new development that I should know about that has sparked this new board decision, I would be very grateful to hear about it. But if there's not, or if you prefer to keep silent, go in peace.

And I made this post on Twitter and Facebook:

I do get tired of being disappointed by people I had thought were friends. But I suppose that's the price of having friends.

Soon afterward, I realized these things:

1. The only substance in the Board's letter is the fact that I'm banned because they're concerned I might sue them for implying I'm unsafe. Their logic is odd. If I was the sort of person who liked using the law, banning me would make me more likely to sue them. By banning me, they are giving me the only reason I might have to sue them—in earlier times, no one would have been banned for polite disagreement, so people will quite reasonably assume there must be more to the charge.

2. Their letter says I criticize the convention without citing examples because there are none. I've always supported the convention. I've only criticized its current administrators who speak as if they are the convention—L'Etat, c'est moi is the motto of all petty people who fail to see they are only caretakers.

3. The letter says the Board "would like to resolve this privately", but a ban means nothing if no one knows about it, the idea that five members of this community could keep anything private is hilarious, and there's nothing offered to resolve: the Board isn't dangling any hope of rescinding the ban if I promise to keep from criticizing them in the future. Their "privately" may mean they want to keep the story in the realm of gossip instead of making a press release, but the game of telephone began the moment a Board member told a friend I'd been banned or answered an inquiry about whether I'll be at this year's 4th Street.

So the Board has given me three choices:

a. Do nothing, thereby validating the implication that I'm banned for the same reason other men in our community have been banned.

b. Sue the Board to make them admit that the implications of their ban are false.

c. Make the historical record public so people may draw their own conclusions.

I'm going with Option C.

Ah, well. We live in mad times. The current Board reminds me that identitarianism is a cult. Perhaps the greatest sign of cultishness is the haste to silence those who disagree, the heretics, pagans, barbarians, and outlaws, the people who've always been part of my tribe.

Two things keep recurring to me since last Thursday. The first is Rafael Sabatini's opening to Scaramouche, "He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad." The second is that the only good thing about people fighting you is it says you matter. My friends think I should be upset by the Board's letter, but I'm not. I find it oddly validating.

PS. At least one person has suggested I haven't given the full story of what happened with Fourth Street. To the best of my knowledge, I've shared everything that's relevant. If I've left anything out, the Fourth Street Board is welcome to share it.

The Scottsboro Boys were nine African American teenagers, ages 13 to 19, accused in Alabama of raping two White American women on a train in 1931. The landmark set of legal cases from this incident dealt with racism and the right to a fair trial. The cases included a lynch mob before the suspects had been indicted, all-white juries, rushed trials, and disruptive mobs. It is commonly cited as an example of a miscarriage of justice in the United States legal system.

Tawana Glenda Brawley (born 1972) is an African-American woman from Wappingers Falls, New York, who gained notoriety in 1987–88 for falsely accusing four white men of having raped her. The charges received widespread national attention because of her age (15), the persons accused (including police officers and a prosecuting attorney), and the state in which Brawley was found after the alleged rape.

'Thank goodness,' writes New York prosecutor Linda Fairstein in her book 'Sexual Violence,' '[the victim's] testimony -- when it is credible -- is all that is needed to convict a rapist, as it is any other criminal.'

But what is 'credible'? In 1996, Los Angeles police officer Harris Scott Mintz was accused of rape by two women who were said to be 'very credible': a woman in the neighborhood he patrolled, then his own wife. At a pretrial hearing, the judge pronounced that he had no doubt about Mintz's guilt. Then, Mrs. Mintz admitted that she made up the charge because she was angry at her husband for getting in trouble with the law; subsequently, Mintz's attorneys uncovered evidence that the first accuser had told an ex-roommate she had concocted the rape charge in order to sue the county, and that she had tried a similar hoax before. By the time the case collapsed, Mintz had spent five months in jail.

2001

Your biggest fan! Tucker Carlson's account of being charged with rape by a delusional fan he had never met.

Banks was a standout high school football star at Polytechnic High School (Poly) in Long Beach, California. In 2002, his Junior year, Banks verbally committed to USC.[6] After being falsely accused of rape by a classmate, he spent more than five years in prison and five years on strict custody parole, but had his conviction overturned in 2012 after his accuser admitted she had fabricated the entire story.

The runaway bride case was the case of Jennifer Carol Wilbanks (born March 1, 1973), an American woman who ran away from home on April 26, 2005, in order to avoid her wedding with John Mason, her fiancé, on April 30. Her disappearance from Duluth, Georgia, sparked a nationwide search and intensive media coverage, including some media speculation that Mason had killed her. On April 29, Wilbanks called Mason from Albuquerque, New Mexico, and falsely claimed that she had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted by a Hispanic male and a white woman.

The Duke lacrosse case was a widely reported 2006 criminal case in which three members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team were falsely accused of rape. The case evoked varied responses from the media, faculty groups, students, the community, and others. The case's resolution sparked public discussion of racism, media bias, and due process on campuses, and ultimately led to the resignation and disbarment of the lead prosecutor, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong.

A Dana Point woman pleaded guilty Monday to falsely accusing six men of kidnapping and raping her in 2004, a lie that could have led to life sentences for the accused if not for a videotape that showed that the sex was consensual.

The Hofstra University rape case was a 2009 false accusation of rape in which 18-year-old Hofstra University student, Danmell Ndonye, falsely accused fellow student Rondell Bedward, and his friends Jesus Ortiz, Kevin Taveras, Arvin Rivera and Stalin Felipe of holding her down, tying her up and gang raping her in a Hofstra University dormitory bathroom stall on the morning of September 13, 2009. A few days later these claims were revealed to be false when a video of the event was given to the police which showed that the entire encounter was consensual.

Seefeld's son, Caleb Warner, was accused in January 2010 of sexually assaulting a fellow University of North Dakota student. He was initially suspended from the university, but the sanction was later lifted after no criminal charges were filed against Warner, and his accuser was charged with making a false report to law enforcement, with a warrant being issued for her arrest. Seefeld says, "It's pretty hard to say, 'Well, you know, some people are falsely accused,' because immediately, you are accused of being a rape apologist, it is assumed that your son is a rapist and you're lying for him."

The woman whose false rape claims put an innocent man behind bars for nearly four years was sentenced to one to three years in prison on perjury charges. After pleading guilty to making up a story that she was gang raped in Upper Manhattan in 2005 to elicit sympathy from friends, Biurny Peguero Gonzalez was hit with jail time.

Heidi Jones, former New York tv meteorologist, admitted Wednesday she'd made up claims of being repeatedly attacked by a stranger on the city streets, allegations that sparked an extensive investigation before police said she told them she'd invented the story to get attention.

The student Sulkowicz accused was found not responsible in 2013 by a university inquiry into the allegations. He called Sulkowicz's accusation "untrue and unfounded" and Mattress Performance an act of bullying. Sulkowicz filed a police complaint in May 2014; the district attorney's office did not pursue criminal charges, citing a lack of reasonable suspicion. In April 2015 the student filed a lawsuit against the university, its trustees, university president Lee Bollinger, and art professor Jon Kessler, Sulkowicz's thesis supervisor, alleging that they exposed him to gender-based harassment by allowing Mattress Performance to take place on campus for course credit. The suit was dismissed in March 2016. The student filed an amended complaint on April 25, 2016, which resulted in the university settling for undisclosed terms, and expressing regret about his "difficult" time and promising to reform its policies so "accuser and accused, including those like [the student] who are found not responsible" are "treated with respect" in the future.

Neither the male accused of rape nor the 20-year-old female student who accused him have any memory of the incident... During the incident, the woman reportedly told the man to continue when he asked her whether he should stop. She appeared to be responsive and was smiling.

"A Rape on Campus" is a Rolling Stone magazine article, written by Sabrina Erdely and originally published on November 19, 2014, that describes a purported group sexual assault at the University of Virginia (UVA). Rolling Stone retracted the story in its entirety on April 5, 2015.

False accusation of rape: "It is difficult to assess the true prevalence of false rape allegations, but it is generally agreed that, for about 2% to 10% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted."

Thursday, March 8, 2018

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation." – Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln, obviously, was no socialist, as the second and less-quoted half of that paragraph shows. I like to think that if called on it, he would've agreed that the rights of capital are not as worthy of protection as any other rights – I doubt he would defend the right of a land owner to refuse to let people dying of hunger or thirst take water from a stream or grain from a field that the land owner has claimed. He obviously rejected the pure capitalist idea that people have a right to own anything, including people.

Lincoln understood the primacy of labor, and he understood that the conflict between capitalists and socialists is over the "consideration" between workers and the people who profit from them. Our growing wealth gap shows how little that "higher consideration" is valued today.

Thursday, March 1, 2018

When left identitarians speak of white privilege, they point to the likelihood of living in bad homes or being homeless, going to bad schools, getting bad health care, having bad job opportunities, and being killed by the police.

By this logic, poor white people are not white, and Jews and Asians are whiter than Christian white people.

3. Identitarians who argue that privilege is about prejudice fail to notice that poor whites have always faced prejudice, as terms like "white trash" and "redneck" show. The prejudice against the white poor may be as old as the idea of whiteness. See White trash - Wikipedia:

In 1833, Fanny Kemble, an English actress visiting Georgia, noted in her journal: "The slaves themselves entertain the very highest contempt for white servants, whom they designate as 'poor white trash'".